EO>Now let's turn back to TE/PC and my example of the spontaneous
generation of
>a functional protein. If I understand correctly, TE's maintain that God
>could have produced this protein by operating through natural laws alone
>(w/o "transcendental" intervention). Now, for the sake of discussion, I set
>the probability at a fictitious astronomical 1 in 30 gazillion years. This
>means that ON AVERAGE once every 30 gazillion years a functional protein
>will spontaneously assemble. It might happen the very first year. Or it
>might not happen at all in 32 gazillion years. But if you waited for a long
>enough time and recorded all the results that ON AVERAGE once every 30
>gazillion years you would see the spontaneous generation of a functional
>protein. These observations could be formulated into a natural law. (I'm
>assuming we can calculate the probability of spontaneous generation without
>waiting around gazillions of years in the same way that we can predict the
>probability of the results for rolling a fair die one billion times without
>actually performing billions of rolls.) Thus, the spontaneous generation of
>a functional protein in would be possible (although highly unlikely) through
>the operation of natural laws alone.
Agreed. I think we are just going round in circles! :-)
EO>Now, let's say that God determines the "random" connection of amino
acids
>just as he determines the "random" throw of a die. He deliberately
>determines the spontaneous generation of a functional protein to occur
>within the first 2 billion years (maybe I should have used 1 billion) of
>earth's history. This is an extremely improbable occurance. Did He "break
>the law"? No. As long as He causes it to occur ON AVERAGE only once every
>30 gazillion years, He can sprinkle in spontaneous generations any place
>that fits his fancy and still leave the natural law intact. And as long as
>He stays within the bounds of natural law, He is invisible to scientific
>detection. God directs the entire process, but we can never "catch him in
>the act". I guess what I am trying to say is that the infitesimal
>perturbations that Bill Hamilton refers to could be hidden below the
>detection limits of science in the noise of "random" chance. What you call
>an extraordinary improbable coincidence will most likely depend on your
>philosphical orientation. An atheistic Darwinist attributes it to sheer
>luck; a theistic evolutionist attributes it to God's continous guidance
>through natural law; most progressive (and YEC) creationists would attribute
>it to a transcendental intervention. It looks to me that this example
>really begins to blur the TE/PC boundary. I guess it all depends on how you
>define "transcendental" intervention. (see below)
I have no problem with this. I never have. I accept Pr 16:33
unreservedly. But it does not mean that God cannot also intervene
directly and supernaturally and generate a functional protein.
You might be able to reconcile natural law probabilities with one
miracle, but what if a whole series of miracles are needed to bring
about the first self-replicating *system*? There is no such thing as
a self-replicating molecule - there is only self-replicating molecular
*systems*. There are many enzymes required to make the first
self-replicating molecular system. It seems to me you can't keep
claiming that *normal* natural laws of probability are operating at
the same time you are claiming God is determining it. IOW I don't
think you can extend Pr 16:33 to cover miracles. It is meant only to
apply to normal natural laws of probability, applying in the rolling
of normal dice.
[...]
>Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
^^^^
>Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
No doubt you have been told many times that you have a good middle
name for a Prof. of Biochemistry! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------